I fully agree with the "better packaged" part, less with the "pproximate middle value that would work for either size" but still that is the reasoning behind the weight of the kits.

It's doubly frustrating for me because I rely on Hero Lab heavily and they're not going to be able to implement the kits in such a way that you add the kit and it auto-adds the items... which means that you have to add all of the items manually... and therefore will never get the weight listed in UE.

I love the idea of kits. I'm playing with a lot of new players and when they had to buy their starting equipment they nearly had an aneurism over all the choices in front of them.

That being said, I agree with the discounted price, but I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all weight issue because mass =/= weight. No matter how tightly you pack something in, it's not going to get lighter. I also agree with everyone else's reasons mentioned on here, too.

TECHNICALLY NOT AN ERROR: This cape's construction requirements mention the spell shield, but the actual function of this item is a mimic of the entropic shield spell. Perhaps "or entropic shield" should be added to the end of the construction requirements, which would allow a wider variety of spellcasters access to making one of these with little fuss.

This magic item comes in several varieties, namely crusades, swiftness, terror, and victory. The spell section of the Construction Requirements, however, mention a 5th type that doesn't exist: leadership.

Both of these items mention an item called a "stone of controlling earth elementals" however no such item exists. There is, however, an item called the "stone of conjuring earth elementals" on page 321.

Just because it doesn't get said often enough, I'm going to say "thank you Strife2002" for all of your free proofreading. I know that it's a fun hobby, and also that you're not perfect, but still. You're doing something that's useful, and you deserve recognition for it. Yay you! :)

This magic item comes in several varieties, namely crusades, swiftness, terror, and victory. The spell section of the Construction Requirements, however, mention a 5th type that doesn't exist: leadership.

odd, the APG had this same error then the errata removed the leadership text.

The item armor of rage mentions something called an "armor of command" twice (once in the first sentence of the description, then again under the Intended Magic Item section) and says it functions like it as a suit of +1 full plate.

There is nothing called an armor of command, but there is a breastplate of command, but obviously it functions as breastplate, not full plate.

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata.
1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg. 33 - Net

Prepare thyself for a tarrasque-sized headache.

Net's have a lovely little issue with them. For years there was nothing wrong with them mechanically, and then Ultimate Combat came out:

Long-version jargon. For the TL;DR version, scroll down:

Ultimate Combat Pg. 111; Net and Trident feat wrote:

Net and Trident (Combat)

Your skill with lighter weapons allows you to wield one alongside your net.
...
Benefit: You can treat a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, allowing you to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon and still make ranged attacks with your net...[etc.]
Normal: A net is a two-handed ranged weapon.

1) The description of the net says nothing about requiring two hands to throw it. According to someone on these boards that's used one of these things personally, he confirms that using one one-handed is a feat of mythic legerdemain. That's all well and good, but I'm guessing most of us are like me and haven't touched one. I feel it's important this is mentioned in the description. Especially since...

2) With Two-Weapon Fighting, apparently you could always wield one of these one-handed since the Core Rulebook, as long as the weapon in your other hand was also a thrown weapon:

Core Rulebook Pg. 202; Two-Weapon Fighting description wrote:

Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

Emphasis mine, obviously. So you can throw one of these one-handed without the Net and Trident feat as long as your other weapon is a ranged weapon, as well. Odd and awkward, but technically not contradictory to the rules.

*whew*

So to summarize:

1) Nets are apparently two-handed thrown weapons, which the item descriptions in both the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment fail to mention. We only know this via a mention in the Net and Trident feat on page 111 of Ultimate Combat.

2) This same Net and Trident feat allows a character to wield a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, permitting them to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. However...

3) Despite all this, according to the two-weapon fighting rules on page 202 of the Core Rulebook, a net can be used as a one-handed ranged weapon as long as the weapon used in the other hand is also a ranged weapon.

In the treasure generation table, a lessor minor armor can be any armor with a special material...even adamantine full plate, which shouldn't appear until medium or better armors (since adamantine breastplate is listed in the specific medium armors).
Some guidance on special material armors would be helpful there.

In 3.x, the Sai granted you a +4 bonus at your attempts to disarm a foe. Presumably because the thing is just so darn good at disarming.

In pathfinder, the disarm quality grants you a +2 bonus to CMB checks made to disarm.

So, the sai in pathfinder has the disarm quality, meaning it has a +2 to disarm, but then it says it also has a +2 to sunder. This is so strange since the description just extols these things as amazing disarming tools, then randomly implies they're good at breaking stuff when their description gives no such allusions.

I feel "sunder" was actually meant to be "disarm" because this would be like adding an additional +2 to the disarm quality's inherent +2, making this thing a +4 total to disarm like editions past (which the Core Rulebook was all about).

In 3.x, the Sai granted you a +4 bonus at your attempts to disarm a foe. Presumably because the thing is just so darn good at disarming.

In pathfinder, the disarm quality grants you a +2 bonus to CMB checks made to disarm.

So, the sai in pathfinder has the disarm quality, meaning it has a +2 to disarm, but then it says it also has a +2 to sunder. This is so strange since the description just extols these things as amazing disarming tools, then randomly implies they're good at breaking stuff when their description gives no such allusions.

I feel "sunder" was actually meant to be "disarm" because this would be like adding an additional +2 to the disarm quality's inherent +2, making this thing a +4 total to disarm like editions past (which the Core Rulebook was all about).

FWIW, when I was in college, I knew some guys who were studying an Okinawan form of karate, and one actually owned a couple of sai. IIRC (from many years ago), they were about a foot long, remarkably heavy -- very dense metal -- and normally used in pairs. The way he explained it to me, you could use one to trap a weapon with its prongs, and then either disarm that weapon with a twist of the wrist, or bring the other sai down and smash it. That would be a bit difficult to turn into a mechanic, so I can see them just giving it a +2 to sunder weapons, without requiring the use of two of them.

p. 138 Cunning weapon quality - this costs a +1 enhancement bonus, and grants a +2 to confirm critical hits, only for creatures you could identify with knowledge skills that you have 5 ranks in. When you compare this to simply increasing the enhancement bonus of the weapon directly, that gives a +1 to confirm crits against ALL creatures, as well as a +1 to attack, weapon damage, CMB checks using the weapon such as disarm or trip if applicable, and gets your weapon closer to bypassing DR.

This makes the actual bonus seem pretty puny - I would think that the bonus was supposed to be +4 to confirm crits, and that it wouldn't stack with Critical Focus feat.

This is more of a general format issue for the Aura listing. For items that have an alignment aura, such as a holy avenger or Nine Lives Stealer, shouldn't good or evil and the strength appear under aura as well as the magic aura?

p. 163 - The undercutting axe is described as "feels unusually heavy, as if it were made from something far heavier than mere wood and steel." However, it actually weighs 6 lbs, just like any other battleaxe. Should it weigh more based on the description?

p. 163 - Void Scythe - since this is powered by channeled negative energy and inflicts negative levels, and destroys the body of those it kills so they can't be raised by anything less than a 9th level effect, should it:

a) have an evil aura
b) count as evil for bypassing DR
c) bestow negative levels on any good wielder
d) some combination of these?

The Harrow Deck is 100gp and weighs "-", but the Masterwork Fortune-Teller's Deck costs 50 gp and weighs 1 lb (with even a cheap common one weighing 1/2 lb).

Furthermore, the Fortune-Teller's Deck provides a +2 bonus to Profession(fortune-teller), and similar skills, but the Harrow Deck makes no mention of this.

I think the best solution is to decide which is correct and simply remove the other item entirely.

On a related note, the entire division between Adventuring Gear and Tools and Skill Kits is annoying. There are items that give bonuses to skills in both sections, and there's some overlap like this, such as the Book of Letters on p. 60 and the Forger's Kit on p. 77.

In the treasure generation table, a lessor minor armor can be any armor with a special material...even adamantine full plate, which shouldn't appear until medium or better armors (since adamantine breastplate is listed in the specific medium armors).

Some guidance on special material armors would be helpful there.

moreover, you cannot generate a special material armor or sheild with magical properties.

In 3.x, the Sai granted you a +4 bonus at your attempts to disarm a foe. Presumably because the thing is just so darn good at disarming.

In pathfinder, the disarm quality grants you a +2 bonus to CMB checks made to disarm.

So, the sai in pathfinder has the disarm quality, meaning it has a +2 to disarm, but then it says it also has a +2 to sunder. This is so strange since the description just extols these things as amazing disarming tools, then randomly implies they're good at breaking stuff when their description gives no such allusions.

I feel "sunder" was actually meant to be "disarm" because this would be like adding an additional +2 to the disarm quality's inherent +2, making this thing a +4 total to disarm like editions past (which the Core Rulebook was all about).

FWIW, when I was in college, I knew some guys who were studying an Okinawan form of karate, and one actually owned a couple of sai. IIRC (from many years ago), they were about a foot long, remarkably heavy -- very dense metal -- and normally used in pairs. The way he explained it to me, you could use one to trap a weapon with its prongs, and then either disarm that weapon with a twist of the wrist, or bring the other sai down and smash it. That would be a bit difficult to turn into a mechanic, so I can see them just giving it a +2 to sunder weapons, without requiring the use of two of them.

Suggestion/Request for the Paizo folks when they address table 7-13 (weapons): Please include ammunition. I'm not sure whether it was supposed to be in there to begin with, but there is apparently some room if not originally allocated. A single "slot" for "ammunition" (like the "other <X> weapon" entries) would be sufficient. Thanks!

Roll d%. A 01–30 result indicates that the item sheds light, 31–45 indicates that something (a design, inscription, or the like) provides a clue to the weapon’s function, and 46–100 indicates no special qualities.

I've never agreed with this. The options this randomization gives you are completely unrelated. It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a sandwich where your options are with cheese OR crust-less.

Basically, why can't it have both? I say roll these but make them separate rolls. Rolling for light would be 1-30 and no light 31-100. Rolling for design clue would be 1-15; 16-100 would be no clue.

Also I see a lack of randomizing the size of the weapons and armor you find in a treasure. I thought in the Core Rulebook there was a certain percentage you'd find armor for Small creatures and another percentage you'd find armor for Medium creatures.

EDIT: Example: I could find a +2 orc bane short sword that glows brightly and depicts the slaughter of orcs on its sheath.

These chapters cover all magic items other than the artifacts and specific intelligent and cursed items in Chapter 6.

At the beginning of each subsection in each chapter, it gives a description about the type of item and various ways it can be customized. For example, in chapter 3, the start of the Weapon Special Abilities section on page 134 mentions rolling a d% to determine if a special material was used in construction, as well as a paragraph titled "SPECIAL QUALITIES" that mentions rolling a d% to determine if the weapon glows or has a clue that reveals its function.

Some of the sections, however, seem to have some details missing, including:

- The Armor Special Abilities section (page 114) is missing a "SPECIAL QUALITIES" paragraph all together, where surely it could have been included to mention that a d% roll would determine if a magic armor possessed a clue in its design that hinted at its function.
- Both the Armor Special Abilities section and the Weapon Special Abilities section leave out a mention that a d% roll could be used to randomly impart intelligence to an armor or weapon. Only a roll of 01 would result in intelligence, probably.
- NONE of the magic items' sections detail how to randomly determine if they're cursed. I believe in the past they had a 5% chance of being cursed (01-05).
- As mentioned before, at least for armor and weapons, shouldn't there be a randomization for if the armor or weapon you come across is Small, Medium, or other? I'm pretty sure all other magic items (rings, wondrous items, etc.) resize themselves to the wearer, don't they? (although come to think of it many staves and rods act as weapons in their own right, which makes me think twice about that...)

p. 163 - The undercutting axe is described as "feels unusually heavy, as if it were made from something far heavier than mere wood and steel." However, it actually weighs 6 lbs, just like any other battleaxe. Should it weigh more based on the description?

Maybe that's part of the magic. It FEELS unusually heavy, like you try to lift it and it takes noticably more effort but you seem to have no problem doing so in the end.

Just a mundane flavor effect, maybe, like constantly having the sweet smell of lilacs wafting in your nostrils as long as you're wielding the greatsword of incomparable destruction

The harpoon had the fragile quality in Ultimate Combat but not in this book. Don't get me wrong, I agree with taking it out since it's probably a fairly common coastal and oceanic weapon and not necessarily exclusive to Bronze Age cultures (like UC labels it), I just thought I'd mention that it differed from its last appearance.

The harpoon had the fragile quality in Ultimate Combat but not in this book. Don't get me wrong, I agree with taking it out since it's probably a fairly common coastal and oceanic weapon and not necessarily exclusive to Bronze Age cultures (like UC labels it), I just thought I'd mention that it differed from its last appearance.

items made of bones have the fragile quality. In the UE, they are described this way: "Most harpoons have metal points, but some

use ivory or are made entirely of wood" . Probably the reason why the fragile quality was removed from the table and replaced by "a see text"